Smt.D.Varoodhini

I ASCJ-cum-CMM-cum-I AASJ, Ranga Reddy District.

S.C.No.1263 of 2021 Page 1 of 21

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-CHIEF

METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-CUM-I ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS

JUDGE, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR.

Present: Smt. D.Varoodhini, I Addl. Senior Civil Judge-Cum-Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-Cum-I Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

FRIDAY, THIS THE 12th DAY OF MAY, 2023.

SESSIONS CASE No. 1263 of 2021

(PRC NO.17/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIV METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, CYBERABAD, AT HAYATHNAGAR).

1. Name and description of the :The State of Telangana through SHO complainant P.S. Vanastalipuram. 2Name and description of the A1. Shaik Junaid Ghouse @ Imran @ accusedImmu @ Junnu S/o. Shaik Yousuf, Age: 23 years, Occ: Plumber, R/o. H.No.16- 14/1/A/2, Quba Colony, Near Quba Masjid,ShaheenNagar, Pahadishareef, Ranga Reddy District.

A2. Shaik Rizwan @ Gol S/o. Shaik Ali, Age: 20 years, Occ: Plubmer, R/o.H.NO.17-1-375/419/B/1,Owaisi Colony, Khalender Nagar, Santhosh Nagar, Hyderabad.

A3. Syed Naseer S/o. Khader, Age: 20 years, Occ: Plumber, R/o.Wadh-e- Musthafa Masjid, Near Jalpally Gate, Shaheen Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

A4. Mohd. Syed @ Syed S/o. Shaik Mahamood, Age: 20 years, Occ: Plumber, R/o.H.No.10-140, Quba Colony, Near Quba Masjid, Shaheen

Digitally signed by DharmavarapuDharmavarapu Varoodhini Varoodhini

Date: 2023.05.12

16:46:01 +0530

I ASCJ-cum-CMM-cum-I AASJ, Ranga Reddy District.

S.C.No.1263 of 2021 Page 2 of 21

Nagar, Pahadishareef, Ranga Reddy District.

A5. Mohd. Salman S/o. Mohd. Akram, Age: 23 years, Occ: Denting Work, R/ o. H.No.18-8-251/25, Ground Floor, Riyasath Nagar, Pisala Banda, Hyderabad.

3Crime No.:65 of 2021.

4Offence with which charged : U/sec. 395 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

5Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty 6Finding of the Judge:Found not guilty 7Sentence or order:In the result, accused 1 to 5 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 395 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted for the said offence under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall operate for further period of six months from today. The orders in Crl.M.P. No.271/2022dated04.05.2022 returning MO1 and MO2 to PW1 shall become absolute after expiry of appeal time. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cherlapally is directed to release accused 4 forthwith if he is not required in any other case.

8Prosecution conducted by :Sri. G.V.Rama Krishna.

9Accused defended by:Sri. M. Laxmi Raj, Counsel for accused 1 to 5.

This case having come before me on 12.05.2023 for fnal hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri. G.V. Rama Krishna, Learned

Additional Public Prosecutor and Sri. M.Laxmi Raj, Learned counsel

for accused 1 to 5 and upon perusing the material papers on record,

Digitally signed by DharmavarapuDharmavarapu VaroodhiniVaroodhini

Date: 2023.05.12

16:46:22 +0530

I ASCJ-cum-CMM-cum-I AASJ, Ranga Reddy District.

S.C.No.1263 of 2021 Page 3 of 21 upon hearing arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till date, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This case arises out of charge sheet laid by LW13/Sri.

G.Jagannadh, (PW7) the then Detective-Inspector of Police,

Vanasthalipuram Police Station against accused 1 to 5 herein in Crime

No.65/2021 for the offence punishable Under section 395 of Indian Penal

Code, 1860 [for short ”IPC”].

2.In Brevity, the case of the prosecution is as follows:

On 28.01.2021 at 0700 hours, LW1/Sri. Chintahalapati Buchi

Venkatappaeswara Sharma (PW1) lodged a report stating that he was traveling from Piduguralla to Hyderabad in Bus. On the same day at 0330 hours he got down from the bus at Panama, Vanasthalipuram,

Ranga Reddy District and waiting for an auto at Panama Bus Stop to go to his house. In the meanwhile, four unknown persons reached there in an auto and asked him as to where he was going and forcibly robbed his

Redmi 5A Mobile from his pocket and bag from his hand containing net cash of Rs.4,000/-, small silver gift and cloths and fed away from the spot. Hence, he sought necessary action.

Digitally signed by Dharmavarapu DharmavarapuVaroodhini VaroodhiniDate: 2023.05.12 16:46:38 +0530

I ASCJ-cum-CMM-cum-I AASJ, Ranga Reddy District.

S.C.No.1263 of 2021 Page 4 of 21

3.Basing on the contents of the report of PW1, PW7 registered a case vide Crime No. 65 of 2021 for the offence Under section 392 of IPC and took up the investigation. During the course of his investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of PW1. Thereafter, he visited the scene of offence at Panama Bus stop, Vanasthalipuram and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch map of scene in the presence of LW3/Puranam Veera Ganesh Kumar (PW3) and

LW4/Thallavajhala Subramanya Srinivas. Further he examined and recorded the statement of LW2/Chinthalapati Srinivas Bharathwaj (PW2).

PW7 received intimation from LW10/Sri. D. Nanu Naik, Addl. Inspector of

Police, Malakpet Police Station that they have apprehended the accused 4 and 5 in Crime No.25/2021 for the offence Under section 395 of IPC and on 31.01.2021, accused 4 and 5 voluntarily confessed their guilt of committing the offence along with accused 1 to 3 in this crime and in other crimes as well. As per the confession statement of accused 4 and 5, PW7 altered the section of law from 392 of IPC to 395 of IPC. On 02.02.2021 at 1600 hours, accused 2 and 3 were arrested in Crime

No.66/2021 for the offence Under section 395 of IPC by PW7 and he conducted confession cum seizure panchanama in the presence of LW5/

Nakka Yesu (PW4) and LW6/Edavelli Nagulu (PW5) and seized Redmi 5A mobile phone and net cash of Rs.4,000/- under the cover of panchanama and arrested them and produced before the court for

Digitally signed by Dharmavarapu Dharmavarapu Varoodhini Varoodhini Date: 2023.05.12 16:46:56 +0530

I ASCJ-cum-CMM-cum-I AASJ, Ranga Reddy District.

S.C.No.1263 of 2021 Page 5 of 21 judicial remand. PW7 came to know that accused 1 was also arrested by

Malakpet Police in Crime No.25/2021. As such he collected the copies of

Remand Case Diarty and confession statement of accused 1, 4 and 5 and fled requisition for PT Warrant against accused 1, 4 and 5 before the court and on execution of PT Warrant they were regularized in this case. On requisition of PW7, LW7/Smt. G. Kavitha Devi, the then II

Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar (PW6) has

conducted Test Identifcation Parade of accused 2 and 3 through PW1.

After complying all the formalities of arrest as contemplated under the

Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “Cr.P.C.) and after completion of investigation, PW7 fled charge sheet against accused 1 to 5 for the offence punishable Under section 395 of IPC.

4.The learned XXIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at

L.B.Nagar took cognizance of the offence Under section 395 of IPC against the accused vide PRC No.17/2021. The record refects, on appearance of the accused, case papers were furnished to accused as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. and committed the case record to the Court of Sessions Division i.e. Hon’ble Metropolitan

Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District as the offences are exclusively

triable by Sessions Court. The case was made over to this court as SC

Digitally signed by Dharmavarapu DharmavarapuVaroodhini VaroodhiniDate: 2023.05.12 16:47:08 +0530

I ASCJ-cum-CMM-cum-I AASJ, Ranga Reddy District.

S.C.No.1263 of 2021 Page 6 of 21

No.1263/2021 by Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy

District for disposal according to law.

5.On appearance of the accused, after perusal of the report, statements of the witnesses and material papers on record, upon hearing, the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel, this court framed charge under Section 228 of Cr.P.C. for the offence Under section 395 of IPC, read over the contents of charge and explained to accused in vernacular. Having understood the same, accused denied the charge and opted for trial.

6.Prosecution examined PW1 to PW7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8.

Ex.P1 is the report. Ex.P2 is the scene of offence panchanama along with rough sketch map of scene. Ex.P3 is the Test Identifcation Parade proceedings (three papers). Ex.P4 is the First Information Report. Ex.P5 is the confession-cum-seizure panchanama of accused 2 and 3. Exs.P6 to P8 are the attested copies of confession-cum-seizure panchanama of accused 1, 4 and 5. The prosecution also got marked MO1 Redmi 5A mobile phone. MO2 net cash of Rs.1,200/-.

7.On conclusion of the prosecution evidence, accused were examined Under section 313 Cr.P.C. putting the entire incriminating

Digitally signed by Dharmavarapu Dharmavarapu Varoodhini Varoodhini Date: 2023.05.12 16:47:21 +0530

I ASCJ-cum-CMM-cum-I AASJ, Ranga Reddy District.

S.C.No.1263 of 2021 Page 7 of 21 circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Accused denied the entire evidence on record in toto and have not chose to adduce any evidence on their behalf. The case of the accused is of total denial.

8.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused.

9.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the testimony of PW1 is consistent, convincing and corroborating on material particulars with regard to the occurrence of offence, commission of the offence by the accused and identifcation of accused 2 and 3 coupled with the evidence of PW6. Though, the panch witnesses i.e. PW4 and PW5 for confession-cum-seizure panchanama of accused 2 and 3 failed to testify anything incriminating against the accused and recovery of MO1 and MO2, the testimony of PW7 the Investigating officer is quite consistent and substantiates the oral account of other witnesses. Nothing could be elicited by the defence through the cross examination of official witnesses to rebut the case of the prosecution.

Basing on the testimonies of PW1, PW6 and PW7 conviction can be based hence, prayed to convict the accused.

Digitally signed by Dharmavarapu DharmavarapuVaroodhini VaroodhiniDate: 2023.05.12 16:47:33 +0530

I ASCJ-cum-CMM-cum-I AASJ, Ranga Reddy District.

S.C.No.1263 of 2021 Page 8 of 21

10.On the contrary, the learned counsel for accused vehemently contended that albeit PW1 is the only eye witness to the incident, his evidence cannot come to the aid of the prosecution as there is no iota of incriminating evidence against the accused in his testimoney. Nothing tangible could be elicited in favour of prosecution through the testimonies of PW1, PW6 and PW7. The testimony of PW7 is also of no consequence, since he is neither an eye witness nor circumstantial witness to the incident. The discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimony of PW1 and PW6 vis-a-vis identifcation of accused 2 weakens the case of the prosecution. Further, no recovery has been effected from the possession of the accused, and the uncorroborated testimony of

PW7 cannot form basis for convicting the accused. Hence prayed to acquit the accused.

11.Now the point that emerges for determination is

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of Accused 1 to 5

for the ofence Under section 395 of IPC beyond all

reasonable doubt?

12.POINT: The relevant facts as per the prosecution case are that on 28.01.2021 at 03:30 hours when PW1 alighted from the bus at Panama,

Vanasthalipuram, Ranga Reddy District and waiting for an auto to go to his house, accused 2, 3 and 5 came in the auto of accused 1. Accused 1

Digitally signed by DharmavarapuDharmavarapu VaroodhiniVaroodhini

Date: 2023.05.12

16:47:42 +0530

I ASCJ-cum-CMM-cum-I AASJ, Ranga Reddy District.

S.C.No.1263 of 2021 Page 9 of 21 and 4 came in Suzuki Access bike which was robbed in other crime and when they noticed PW1 waiting for an auto, they went near him and asked as to where he was to go and robbed his bag and Redmi mobile from his hand forcibly and fed away. Accused 2 retained mobile phone with him, accused 3 retained cash of Rs.1,200/-, accused 1 retained the bag containing remaining amount and silver gift. PW7 received information from LW10/Sri. D. Nanu Naik, Addl. Inspector of Police,

Malakpet Police Station that they have apprehended the accused 4 and 5 in Crime No.25/2021 for the offence Under section 395 of IPC and on 31.01.2021 they admitted their guilt of committing the offence along with accused 1 to 3 in the said crime and also in Crime No.65/2021 of

Vanasthalipuram Police Station which is the case at hand. On 02.02.2021 at 1600 hours accused 2 and 3 were arrested in Crime

No.66/2021 for the offence Under section 395 of IPC by PW7 and seized

Redmi 5A mobile phone and net cash of Rs.1,200/- under the cover of panchanama in the presence of PW4 and PW5 and accused 1 was also arrested by Malakpet Police in Crime No.25/2021 for the offence Under section 395 of IPC and were produced before this court on execution of

PT Warrants. It is the case of the prosecution that Pw1 identifed accused 2 and 3 during the course of Test Identifcation Parade conducted by PW6.

Digitally signed by Dharmavarapu Dharmavarapu Varoodhini Varoodhini Date: 2023.05.12 16:47:54 +0530

I ASCJ-cum-CMM-cum-I AASJ, Ranga Reddy District.

S.C.No.1263 of 2021 Page 10 of 21

13. In order to establish the guilt of accused, prosecution examined seven witnesses in all. PW1 is the defacto complainant who lodged

Ex.P1 report. PW2 is the son of PW1 who is the circumstantial witness,

PW3 is the one of the panch witness for scene of offence panchanama proceedings, PW4 and PW5 are the mediators for confession-cum- seizure panchanama of accused 2 and 3, PW6 is the then Metropolitan

Magistrate, who conducted Test Identifcation Parade of accused 2 and

3. PW7 is the Investigation Officer who issued First Information Report and after completion of investigation fled charge sheet.

14. The testimony of PW1 reveals that on 27.01.2021 he came from

Piduguralla in RTC bus to Hyderabad, he started at 10:00 AM and reached Panama godown, Vanasthalipuram on 28.01.2021 at 03:30 AM as he alighted from the bus, four persons came in an auto and asked as to where he had to go. Immediately, one person out of the said four persons took his Redmi mobile phone from his shirt pocket and also took his bag. There was cash of Rs.4,000/-, one silver gift article and clothes in the bag. They took his cell phone and his bag from him forcibly and fed away. Immediately, he went to his son i.e. PW2 and then went to Vanasthalipuram Police Station along with his son and lodged Ex.P1 report. Later, police informed him that they recovered cash of Rs.1,200/- and Redmi cell phone which are exhibited as MO1

Digitally signed by Dharmavarapu Dharmavarapu Varoodhini Varoodhini Date: 2023.05.12 16:48:05 +0530

I ASCJ-cum-CMM-cum-I AASJ, Ranga Reddy District.

S.C.No.1263 of 2021 Page 11 of 21 and MO2 respectively. Thereafter, he identifed accused 2 and 3 in Test

Identifcation Parade. PW1 identifed accused 2 in the court. During the course of his cross examination, he expressed his ignorance as to the name of the accused whom he identifed in the Test Identifcation

Parade. It was also elicited that no weapons were carried by the said persons and that he saw only four persons and expressed his ignorance whether any other person was present in the vicinity at the time of the incident.

15. PW2 is the son of PW1 and he testifed on similar lines of Pw1 which was narrated to him by PW1. It was elicited in his cross examination that he came to know about the entire incident only through PW1 and Pw1 stated to him that there were fve persons and only one person committed theft of mobile phone and bag along with cash.

16.PW3 is the panch witness for scene of offence panchanama who testifed that police conducted panchanama at Panama godown,

Vanasthalipuram near RTC counter near Laxmi Electronics in his presence on 28.01.2021. He categorically stated in his cross examination that he knew PW1 and PW2 as they belonged to same caste and they all preach in temples. He was asked by the Inspector of

Digitally signed by Dharmavarapu Dharmavarapu Varoodhini Varoodhini Date: 2023.05.12 16:48:15 +0530

I ASCJ-cum-CMM-cum-I AASJ, Ranga Reddy District.

S.C.No.1263 of 2021 Page 12 of 21

Police to act as panch witness and accordingly he participated in the panchanama, which was conducted between 07:30 AM to 05:15 AM.

17. PW4 and PW5 are the mediators for confession-cum-seizure panchanama of accused 2 and 3. Both the witnesses in unison voiced that when they went to Vanasthalipuram Police Station on their personal work, police asked them to act as panch witnesses and they have shown two persons in their custody and police when enquired both the said persons informed that they committed theft of Rs.4,000/-, cell phone from one person at Panama godown, Vanasthalipuram. However, both the witnesses failed to identify the accused in the court. They also testifed that police obtained their thumb impressions on some written papers.

18. Pw6 is the then II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar who conducted Test Identifcation Parade proceedings of accused 2 and 3. Basing on the standing instructions of the Hon’ble

Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, the parade was conducted on 19.03.2022 at Chenchalguda Central Prison and she recorded the statement of PW1 who stated that he can identify the accused if they are shown to him. Thereafter, she recorded the

Digitally signed by Dharmavarapu Dharmavarapu Varoodhini Varoodhini Date: 2023.05.12 16:48:24 +0530

I ASCJ-cum-CMM-cum-I AASJ, Ranga Reddy District.

S.C.No.1263 of 2021 Page 13 of 21 proceedings wherein PW1 identifed accused 2 and 3. Ex.P3 is the Test

Identifcation Parade proceedings.

19. PW7 is the Investigation Officer who having received Ex.P1 report from PW1, registered the crime Under section 392 of IPC, examined and recorded the statement of PW1, visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama and prepared sketch map of scene in the presence of mediators. He produced accused before the court on execution of PT Warrants. He primarily testifed about the procedural aspects of investigation done by him. Upon completion of investigation, he fled charge sheet against the accused 1 to 5 for the offence Under section 395 of IPC.

20. This court framed charges against the accused 1 to 5 for the offence Under section 395 of IPC. In order to appreciate the evidence on record, relevant provisions in respect of offence of dacoity are required to be referred to and the relevant provisions are extracted hereunder:

“391. Dacoity.—When fve or more persons conjointly

commit or attempt to commit a robbery, or where the

whole number of persons conjointly committing or

attempting to commit a robbery, and persons present and

Digitally signed by DharmavarapuDharmavarapu VaroodhiniVaroodhini

Date: 2023.05.12

16:48:33 +0530

I ASCJ-cum-CMM-cum-I AASJ, Ranga Reddy District.

S.C.No.1263 of 2021 Page 14 of 21

aiding such commission or attempt, amount to fve or

more, every person so committing, attempting or aiding, is

said to commit “dacoity”.

… … …

395. Punishment for dacoity.—Whoever commits dacoity

shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with

rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten

years, and shall also be liable to fne.”

21.The essential ingredients of Section 391 are:

1. Five or more persons must act in association.

2. Such act must be robbery or attempt to commit robbery.

3. Five persons must consists of those who themselves commit or attempt to commit robbery or those who are present and aid the principle actors in the commission or attempt of such robbery.

On a plain reading of Section 391 of IPC, it can be inferred that the commission of robbery in association by fve or more persons is sine qua non of the offence Under section 391 of IPC. For the application of 391 of IPC, it is necessary that all the persons should share the common intention of committing robbery. The accused must be shown

Digitally signed by Dharmavarapu Dharmavarapu Varoodhini Varoodhini Date: 2023.05.12 16:48:43 +0530

I ASCJ-cum-CMM-cum-I AASJ, Ranga Reddy District.

S.C.No.1263 of 2021 Page 15 of 21 to have committed robbery or aided in the commission of it and they must be among the body of persons who extorted money or aided them in extorting the money.

22.The prosecution in order to prove its case has to primarily establish the occurrence of incident and identity of the accused persons basing on trial before this court beyond reasonable doubt. In the case at hand, PW1 is the only victim and eye witness of the crime and the prime witness of the prosecution around whom the entire case is revolving.

The testimony of PW1 on the incident is consistent that on 28.01.2021 at 03:30 AM while he alighted from bus, four persons came in auto and robbed MO1 and MO2 along with other currency, silver gift article and clothes in the bag. Nothing was elicited during the course of cross examination so as to cast any doubt of his testimony vis-a-vis the occurrence of the incident.

23. Now this court has to evaluate whether the accused who are facing trial before this court have committed this offence as alleged against them and whether their identity is proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The accused are unknown to Pw1 and hence identifcation of the accused by PW1 assumes signifcance in order to base a conviction. PW7 frstly registered the case for the offence under

Digitally signed by Dharmavarapu

Dharmavarapu

Varoodhini

Varoodhini

Date: 2023.05.12

16:48:53 +0530

I ASCJ-cum-CMM-cum-I AASJ, Ranga Reddy District.

S.C.No.1263 of 2021 Page 16 of 21

Section 392 of IPC and thereafter the section was altered to Section 395 of IPC. The case of the prosecution is that accused 2, 3 and 5 came in an auto and accused 1 and 4 came on Suzuki Access bike and robbed the cell phone, bag and silver article from PW1 forcibly and fed away.

Accused 4 and 5 were apprehended in Crime No.25/2021 on 31.01.2021. On 02.02.2021 accused 2 and 3 were arrested in Crime

No.66/2021 and the case properties i.e. MO1 and MO2 were seized by

PW7 from accused 2 and 3 pursuant to their confession. Thereafter, accused 1 was apprehended by Police Malakpet in Crime No.25/2021.

24. Be that as it may, the version of PW1 is that four persons came in an auto and robbed his Redmi mobile phone and bag containing cash of

Rs.4,000/-, silver gift article and cloths forcibly from him. In Ex.P1 it is stated by PW1 that he can identify the said persons if he sees them again. However, no physical features and descriptive particulars of any of the said persons are mentioned either in Ex.P1 or in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. However, PW1 identifed accused 2 in the court, as one of the robbers. It is categorically admitted by him during his cross examination that he identifed only one person during the Test

Identifcation Parade proceedings. To the contrary, as per PW6, PW1 identifed accused 2 and 3 during Test Identifcation Parade proceedings. Hence, there is a clear discrepancy in the statement of

Digitally signed by DharmavarapuDharmavarapu VaroodhiniVaroodhini

Date: 2023.05.12

16:49:05 +0530

I ASCJ-cum-CMM-cum-I AASJ, Ranga Reddy District.

S.C.No.1263 of 2021 Page 17 of 21

PW1 regarding the identifcation of accused and the evidence of PW6 and it is a well settled law that when there is inconsistency regarding the identifcation of the accused, the same is a weak kind of evidence unless corroborated with other relevant material.

25.As mentioned supra, one of the sine qua non of Section 391 of IPC is involvement of fve or more persons acting in association. In the case at hand, as per the evidence of PW1 only four persons came to him and snatched away his Redmi mobile phone and bag from him. Even during the course of cross examination, he categorically admitted that he saw only four persons and he was ignorant as to whether any other person was present in the vicinity. As per the case of the prosecution, accused 2, 3 and 5 came in an auto and accused 1 and 4 came in Suzuki Access bike to the scene, however this version of the prosecution is not corroborated by any of the witnesses, more particularly the eye witness and the victim/PW1. The case of the prosecution solely rests on the evidence of PW1 and as per his testimony there is nothing to infer that all the accused have committed robbery or attempted in the commission of it and they all acted in association with each other for committing the offence.

Digitally signed by DharmavarapuDharmavarapu VaroodhiniVaroodhini

Date: 2023.05.12

16:49:27 +0530

I ASCJ-cum-CMM-cum-I AASJ, Ranga Reddy District.

S.C.No.1263 of 2021 Page 18 of 21

26. In so far as the recovery of MO1 and MO2 is concerned, prosecution examined PW4 and PW5 the panch witnesses for confession-cum-seizure panchanama of accused 2 and 3. Prosecution failed to prove the recovery of MO1 and MO2 pursuant to the confession of accused 2 and 3 as projected by PW7. Both the witnesses failed to identify accused 2 and 3 and denied the recovery made by PW7 pursuant to confession of accused. Further, prosecution failed to examine LW8/Sri. Lachagari Srini and LW9/Danavath Ashok Kumar the mediators for confession cum seizure panchanama of accused 1, 4 and 5 which is recorded in Crime No.25/2021 of Police Malakpet for the reasons best known. Coming to the evidence of PW7 investigation officer, he testifed about the manner of conducting investigation i.e.

receiving the report from Pw1, registering the case and issuing First

Information Report under Ex.P4, recording the statements of prosecution witnesses and affecting the arrest of accused.

27. On a scrupulous scrutiny of evidence of prosecution witnesses, it is quite manifest that except the evidence of PW1 who is the victim there is no other incriminating evidence with regard to the identifcation of accused 2 by PW1 in the court. PW1 did not narrate in Ex.P1 anything about the physical features of accused 2 or any other accused and hence no weightage can be attached to his identifcation of accused 2 in

Digitally signed by DharmavarapuDharmavarapu VaroodhiniVaroodhini

Date: 2023.05.12

16:49:38 +0530

I ASCJ-cum-CMM-cum-I AASJ, Ranga Reddy District.

S.C.No.1263 of 2021 Page 19 of 21 the court. As per the version of prosecution, the confession statement which led to the recovery of MO1 and MO2 is admissible in evidence.

Although prosecution produced PW4 and PW5 to establish the said fact it failed to prove the recovery of MO1 and MO2. It is a cardinal of principle of criminal jurisprudence that the guilt of accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubts. In the case at hand, considering the evidence in toto scrupulously it is quite manifest that the inconsistencies in the identifcation of accused 2 coupled with other infrmities as stated supra render the prosecution case doubtful. As stated earlier no recovery has been effected from the possession of accused. From the discussion supra, I am of the view that there is no incriminating material indicating against accused 1 to 5 much less about the commission of offence by them coupled with recovery and

Identifcation of accused not being proved. Hence, prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge against the accused 1 to 5 for the offence under Section 395 of IPC. Accordingly, this point is answered.

28.In the result, accused 1 to 5 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 395 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted for the said offence under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall operate for further period of six months from today. The orders in

Crl.M.P. No.271/2022 dated 04.05.2022 returning MO1 and MO2 to PW1

Digitally signed by DharmavarapuDharmavarapu VaroodhiniVaroodhini

Date: 2023.05.12

16:49:49 +0530

I ASCJ-cum-CMM-cum-I AASJ, Ranga Reddy District.

S.C.No.1263 of 2021 Page 20 of 21 shall become absolute after expiry of appeal time. The Superintendent,

Central Prison, Cherlapally is directed to release accused 4 forthwith if he is not required in any other case.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 12 th day of May, 2023).

Digitally signed by Dharmavarapu

Dharmavarapu

Varoodhini

Varoodhini

Date: 2023.05.12

16:50:01 +0530 I Additional Senior Civil Judge-cum- Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-I Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Pw 1 : Chintalapati B.V. Sharma.

Pw 2 : Ch.Srinivas Bharadwaj.

Pw 3 : Puranam Veera Ganesh Kumar.

Pw 4 : Nakka Yesu.

Pw 5 : Edavelli Nagulu.

Pw 6 : G.Kavitha Devi.

Pw 7 : G.Jagannath.

FOR DEFENCE:

-Nil.

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P 1 :Report.

Ex.P 2:Scene of offence panchanama.

I ASCJ-cum-CMM-cum-I AASJ, Ranga Reddy District.

S.C.No.1263 of 2021 Page 21 of 21

Ex.P 3:Test Identifcation Parade proceedings (3 in Nos.).

Ex.P 4:First Information Report.

Ex.P 5:Confession-cum-seizure panchanama of accused 2 and 3.

Ex.P 6:Attested copy of confession-cum-seizure panchanama of accused 1, 4 and 5.

Ex.P 7:Attested copy of confession-cum-seizure panchanama of accused 1, 4 and 5.

Ex.P 8:Attested copy of confession-cum-seizure panchanama of accused 1, 4 and 5.

FOR DEFENCE:

-Nil.

Material objects marked:

FOR PROSECUTION:

MO1 : Redmi mobile phone.

MO2 : Net cash of Rs.1,200/-.

FOR DEFENCE:

- Nil.

Digitally signed by Dharmavarapu

Dharmavarapu

Varoodhini

Varoodhini

Date: 2023.05.12

16:50:16 +0530 I Additional Senior Civil Judge-cum- Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-I Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

S.C.No.446 of 2023 Page 1 of 18

TSRA010008402023

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM- CHIEF JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR.

Present: Smt. D.Varoodhini,

Principal Senior Civil Judge -cum-

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

FRIDAY, THIS THE 07th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025.

SESSIONS CASE No. 446 of 2023.

(PRC NO.156/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT LB.NAGAR).

1. Name and description of the :The State of Telangana through SHO complainant P.S. Meerpet. 2Name and description of the Accused 1. Vasireddy Sudha Rani @ accusedVittal Sudha Rani @ SK Subhan Bee, W/o. Naseeruddin @ Srinivas Rao, Age: 42 years, Occ: Organizer of Brothel House, R/o. Plot No.90, MLR Colony, Meerpet, Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, N/o. Pallekarla Bazar, Duggirala Village, Tenali Mandal, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

Accused 2. Lalu Fodikar, S/o. Ratan Fodikar, Age: 50 years, Occ: Gold work, R/o.Plot No.88, Road No.4, Saisuprabath Colony, Bandlaguda,

Digitally signed by

VAROODHINI

DHARMAVARAPU

Date: 2025.02.07

16:51:31 +0530 Prl. Senior Civil Judge -Cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar.

S.C.No.446 of 2023 Page 2 of 18

Nagole, LB.Nagar,Ranga Reddy District, N/o. Bilajboida Village, Arit Post Dasspoor Thana, West Midnapur District, West Bengal State. (Cognizance of offences not taken against him). 3Crime No.:818 of 2021.

4Offence with which charged : Under sections 370 (A)(2) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3, 4, 5, and 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. 5Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty 6Finding of the Judge:Found not guilty 7Sentence or order:In the result, accused 1 is found not guilty for the offences Under Sections 370 (A) (2) of IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5, and 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and accordingly she is acquitted for the said offences Under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall operate for a further period of six months from today. MO1 Samsung gold color mobile phone, MO2 keypad Lava mobile phone, MO3 Samsung blue color mobile phone and MO5 amount of Rs.4,770/- deposited vide FDR No.183077 dated 24.07.2024 shall be confiscated to the State and MO4 five unused condoms shall be destroyed post expiry of appeal time. MO6

Honda Activa two wheeler vehicle

bearing No.AP 11 AN 5972 shall be returned to its owner duly following the procedure contemplated under Cr.P.C. post expirty of appeal time. 8Prosecution conducted by :Sri. K.Laxmi Prasanna.

9Accused defended by:Sri. M.Ramesh.

This case having come before me on 23.01.2025 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri. K.Krishna Prasanna, Additional Public

Digitally signed by

VAROODHINI

DHARMAVARAPU

Date: 2025.02.07

16:51:43 +0530

Prl. Senior Civil Judge -Cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar.

S.C.No.446 of 2023 Page 3 of 18

Prosecutor and Sri. M.Ramesh, learned counsel for accused 1 and upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till date, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This case arises out of charge sheet laid by Sri. M.Mahender

Reddy, (PW4) the then Inspector of Police, Meerpet Police Station, against accused 1 and accused 2 herein in Crime No.818/2021 for the offences punishable Under Sections 370 (A) (2) of Indian Penal Code [for short ‘IPC’] and Sections 3, 4, 5, and 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention)

Act, 1956. However, cognizance of offences was not taken against accused 2 by the committal court as he was a customer as provided under Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:

2.In Brevity, the case of the prosecution is as follows:

Upon receiving credible information about illegal activities of prostitution at Plot No.90, MLR Colony, Meerpet Village, Balapur Mandal,

Ranga Reddy District, on 20.10.2021 at 1830 hours Sri. K.Badya Naik (PW1), Sub-Inspector of Police, Meerpet Police Station obtained permission from his superior the Assistant Commissioner of Police,

Vanasthalipuram and conducted raid along with Sri. P.Yadaiah, Police

Digitally signed by

VAROODHINI

DHARMAVARAPU

Date: 2025.02.07

16:51:57 +0530 Prl. Senior Civil Judge -Cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar.

S.C.No.446 of 2023 Page 4 of 18

Constable, Sri. M.Suresh (PW3), Police Constable and Kum. M.Olga

Shree, Woman Police Constable and secured mediators Syed Mujafar (PW5) and Mohammed Sazid Khan and upon search, they found accused in the hall and victim and customer in the bed room. Accused revealed her particulars and stated that she was running brothel house by engaging the victim for the purpose of prostitution and arranging customers by collecting an amount of Rs.1,000/- to Rs.2,000/-. PW1 recorded the confession statement of accused 1 and seized one

Samsung gold colour mobile phone, net cash of Rs.4,770/-, one keypad lava mobile phone and condoms from her possession under the cover of panchanama.

3.On the strength of panchanama, PW4 registered a case vide Crime

No.181 of 2021 for the offences punishable Under Sections 370 (A) (2) of

IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5, and 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and took up the investigation. During the course of his investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of PW1 to PW3 and P.Yadaiah.

He also examined and recorded the statement of victim/Solanki Fatima

Yogendra Kumar. PW4 effected the arrest of accused 1 on the same day and after complying all the formalities of arrest as contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “Cr.P.C.), accused 1 was

Digitally signed by

VAROODHINI

DHARMAVARAPU

Date: 2025.02.07

16:52:06 +0530

Prl. Senior Civil Judge -Cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar.

S.C.No.446 of 2023 Page 5 of 18 produced before the court for judicial remand. After completion of investigation, PW4 filed charge sheet against accused 1 for the offences punishable Under Sections 370 (A) (2) of IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5, and 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

COGNIZANCE AND COMMITTAL:

4.The learned VI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy

District at LB.Nagar took cognizance for the said offences against accused 1 vide PRC No.156/2022. The record reflects, on appearance of the accused, case papers were furnished to accused 1 as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. and the case record was committed to the

Court of Sessions Division i.e. Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge,

Ranga Reddy District as the offences are exclusively triable by Hon’ble

Sessions Court. Thereafter, the case was made over to this court as S.C.

No.446/2023 by Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy

District for disposal according to law.

FRAMING OF CHARGES:

5.On appearance of the accused after perusal of the report, statements of the witnesses and material papers on record, upon hearing, the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the defence

Digitally signed by

VAROODHINI

DHARMAVARAPU

Date: 2025.02.07

16:52:14 +0530 Prl. Senior Civil Judge -Cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar.

S.C.No.446 of 2023 Page 6 of 18 counsel, this court framed charges under Section 228 of Cr.P.C. for the offences Under Sections 370 (A) (2) of IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5, and 7 of

Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 read over the contents of charges and explained to accused 1 in vernacular. Having understood the same, she denied the charges and opted for trial.

6.Prosecution examined PW1 to PW4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P11.

Ex.P1 is the report. Ex.P2 is confession cum seizure panchanama of accused 1. Ex.P3 is the confession cum seizure cum scene of offence panchanama of accused 2. Ex.P4 is the Search memo. Ex.P5 is the First

Information Report. Ex.P6 is the proceedings of Executive Magistrate and Tahasildar Balapur Mandal dated 01.11.2021. Ex.P7 is the attested copy of FIR No.563/2017 dated 22.10.2017 to the offences u/s. 370 (A) (2) and 370 A of IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5, and 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. Exs.P8 to P11 are the signatures of PW5 on confession cum seizure panchanama of accused No.1. Prosecution also got marked MO1 to MO6. MO1 is Samsung gold color mobile phone, MO2 is keypad Lava mobile phone, MO3 is one Samsung blue color mobile phone, MO4 is five unused condoms. MO5 is sum of Rs.4,770/- deposited vide FDR No.183077 dated 24.07.2024 and MO6 is Honda Activa two wheeler vehicle bearing No.AP 11 AN 5972.

Digitally signed by

VAROODHINI

DHARMAVARAPU

Date: 2025.02.07

16:52:23 +0530

Prl. Senior Civil Judge -Cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar.

S.C.No.446 of 2023 Page 7 of 18

EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED U/SEC. 313(1)(B) CR.P.C.:

7.On conclusion of the prosecution evidence, accused 1 was examined Under Section 313 Cr.P.C. putting the entire incriminating circumstances appearing against her in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. She denied the entire evidence on record in toto and have not chose to adduce any evidence on her behalf. The case of the accused is of total denial.

8.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused.

9.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the testimony of PW1 to PW4 are consistent enough and can form the basis of conviction, though other material witnesses failed to support the prosecution case, hence prayed to convict the accused.

DEFENCE OF ACCUSED:

10.On the contrary, the learned counsel for accused vehemently contended that the crucial witnesses i.e. PW5 the mediator for confession cum seizure panchanama, denied the conduct of any panchanama proceedings in his presence. It is further contended that except the uncorroborated testimonies of PW1 to PW4 there is no

Digitally signed by

VAROODHINI

DHARMAVARAPU

Date: 2025.02.07

16:52:33 +0530

Prl. Senior Civil Judge -Cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar.

S.C.No.446 of 2023 Page 8 of 18 incriminating evidence putforth by the prosecution to prove the charges against accused which cannot form basis for convicting her and MO1 to

MO6 are planted only to implicate the accused in this case. Hence prayed to acquit the accused.

11.Now the point that emerges for determination is

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused 1 for

the offences Under Sections 370, 370A (2) of IPC and

Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention)

Act, 1956 beyond all reasonable doubt?

12.POINT: The conspectus of prosecution case is that accused 1 trafficked, lured and engaged victim/Solanki Fatima Yogendra Kumar for sexual exploitation, running brothel house at Plot No.90, MLR Colony,

Meerpet, inducing the victim for the purpose of prostitution and living on the earnings of the victim. On 20.10.2021, PW1 along with police personnel raided the scene of offence upon receiving credible information and caught hold accused 1 redhandedly. He recorded her confession cum seizure panchanama and in pursuance of her confession seized MO1 to MO6. Hence the charges.

13. To establish the guilt of accused, prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW1 to PW5 among whom PW1 is the Sub-Inspector of

Police who conducted raid at the scene of offence, PW2 and PW3 are the

Digitally signed by

VAROODHINI

DHARMAVARAPU

Date: 2025.02.07

16:52:41 +0530 Prl. Senior Civil Judge -Cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar.

S.C.No.446 of 2023 Page 9 of 18 police personnel who accompanied PW1 to the scene of offence. PW4 is the investigation officer. PW5 is one of the mediator for confession cum seizure panchanama.

EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE:

14. Unearthing the evidence adduced by prosecution, PW1 is the Sub-

Inspector of Police who upon receiving credible information regarding running of brothel house at the scene of offence, raided the scene along with his personnel and he apprehended the accused. He further testified about securing of panch witnesses from the scene offence and conducting confession-cum-seizure panchanama proceedings and subsequent seizure of MO1 to MO5.

15.PW1 specifically testified that on entering the house, they found one hall, two bedrooms and one kitchen. They found one male (accused

No.2) and one female (victim) person in one bedroom half nude and one female (accused No.1) in the hall. On enquiring the accused, she confessed her guilt, whereupon PW1 recorded her confession under

Ex.P2. On the strength of panchanama and Ex.P1 report lodged by PW1,

PW4 registered the case. Thereafter, PW1 handed over the case diary to

PW4 for further investigation.

Digitally signed by

VAROODHINI

DHARMAVARAPU

Date: 2025.02.07

16:52:55 +0530

Prl. Senior Civil Judge -Cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar.

S.C.No.446 of 2023 Page 10 of 18

16.PW2 and PW3 the police personnel who accompanied PW1 to the scene of offence house situated at Plot No.90, MLR Colony, Meerpet in unison voiced that on entering the house they noticed two female and one male in the said house. On enquiry by PW1, accused 1 admitted that she was running brothel house and said male person is the customer and another lady is the victim. Thereafter, PW1 conducted confession-cum-seizure panchanama proceedings and seized material objects.

17. PW4 the investigation officer who upon receiving the case diary from PW1, examined and recorded the statements of prosecution witnesses, he arrested accused and produced her before the court for judicial custody, he produced the victim before the court for safe custody and after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet against the accused 1 and 2.

18.PW5 is one of the mediator for confession cum seizure panchanama as per the prosecution case. However, he denied the conduct of any panchanama by PW1 in his presence and subsequent seizure of MO1 to MO6. During the course of his cross examination by

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor nothing incriminating against accused could be brought out. A perusal of testimony of PW5 manifests

Digitally signed by

VAROODHINI

DHARMAVARAPU

Date: 2025.02.07

16:53:03 +0530 Prl. Senior Civil Judge -Cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar.

S.C.No.446 of 2023 Page 11 of 18 that he being the crucial witness to the prosecution case, his evidence cannot come to the aid of the prosecution.

19.PW1 to PW4 were cross examined at length by the defence.

During the course of cross examination, PW1 categorically admitted that he did not carry any laptop or computer to the scene of offence and he himself typed the panchanama in the police station. Thereafter, panchanama was again taken to scene of offence for obtaining the signatures of panch witnesses and the same was not mentioned by him in his statement. Contradicting his version, PW2 testified that PW1 prepared the proceedings at the scene of offence and the proceedings were hand written by him and that they did not visit the scene of offence for the second time.

20.Surprisingly, PW3 testified contradicting the versions of Pw1 and

PW2. He states that Pw1 recorded the proceedings in his laptop at the scene of offence as he carried laptop and printer to the scene of offence. A perusal of the testimonies of Pw1 to Pw3 vis-a-vis the recording of panchanama proceedings, their statements are contradicting and inconsistent and no inference can be drawn by this court that the panchanama proceedings are conducted as contemplated under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure which falsifies

Digitally signed by

VAROODHINI

DHARMAVARAPU

Date: 2025.02.07

16:53:22 +0530

Prl. Senior Civil Judge -Cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar.

S.C.No.446 of 2023 Page 12 of 18 the prosecution case with regard to the recording of panchanama at the scene of offence by PW1 in the presence of mediators and subsequent seizure of material objects.

21.PW4 is the inspector of police who issued FIR and testified about the investigation done by him i.e. examining and recording the statements of Pw1 to Pw3 and other prosecution witnesses, effecting the arrest of accused 1, visiting the scene of offence and depositing the case property before the court. During the course of his cross examination, he categorically admitted that no search warrant was obtained from the Magistrate concerned by PW1 to conduct search at the scene of offence and PW1 did not even inform the Magistrate concerned about the search of the scene of offence even after its search. He further categorically admitted that no videographic or photographic evidence was filed to prove that search was conducted on the said date at the scene of offence.

22.Be that as it may, a perusal of the record manifests that PW4 failed to investigate on the lines as to why and how the victim was trafficked and none of the persons related to her or from her native place were examined. It further makes it clear that no decoy operation was conducted prior to raid. The specific case of the prosecution is that

Digitally signed by

VAROODHINI

DHARMAVARAPU

Date: 2025.02.07

16:53:31 +0530 Prl. Senior Civil Judge -Cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar.

S.C.No.446 of 2023 Page 13 of 18 accused 1 took the scene of offence house on rental basis from its owner namely B.Ramesh who is cited as prosecution witness. However, prosecution failed to examine the said witness for the reasons best known. Nothing prevented PW4 to putforth any piece of documentary proof to show that accused was the tenant of B.Ramesh, further PW4 failed to secure any rental deed between them as well. Except denying that accused is not the resident of scene of offence, Pw4 failed to produce any municipal record in that regard.

23.PW1 to PW3 categorically admitted that there were residential houses surrounding the scene of offence. However, nothing prevented either PW1 or PW4 to examine any independent witnesses from the vicinity of scene which proves fatal to the case of prosecution especially in the teeth of the evidence of Pw1 to Pw3. A crucial admission made by

PW1 is that the denomination of seized amount is neither mentioned in the Ex.P1 report, in his statement nor in Ex.P2 panchanama proceedings. This admission further weakens the case of the prosecution and creates a cloud of suspicion regarding the seizure of material objects from the scene of offence. Prosecution failed to examine the crucial witness, the victim, the landlord of scene of offence, another mediator for confession cum seizure panchanama for the reasons best known.

Digitally signed by

VAROODHINI

DHARMAVARAPU

Date: 2025.02.07

16:53:44 +0530

Prl. Senior Civil Judge -Cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar.

S.C.No.446 of 2023 Page 14 of 18

24.A scrupulous perusal of evidence on record manifests that the evidence of PW1 to PW4 are procedural and being the official witnesses, their evidence cannot be independently believed when there is no corroborative evidence more particularly in view of the evidence of PW5 who failed to support the case of prosecution in toto. His evidence is not only seriously fatal to the case of the prosecution but also disproves the very interrogation of accused by PW1, recording her confession and seizure of MO1 to MO5 which ultimately touches the root of the case.

The entire evidence of PW1 to PW4 are procedural in nature, however the evidence of Pw1 speaks that the accused had confessed her guilt in presence of PW5 and Mohd. Sajid Khan. Except this particular incriminating statement against accused, there is absolutely no other evidence against the accused to bring home the guilt for the offences under Sections 370 (A) (2) of IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5, and 7 of Immoral

Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. Even the said portion of confession is not admissible which is hit by Sections 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

25.Furthermore, Though the prosecution got marked Ex.P7 attested copy of FIR No.563/2017 dated 22.10.2017 for the offence u/s.370(A)(2), 370A of IPC and Section 4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 registered accused No.1 of PS Meerpet, nothing has been brought

Digitally signed by

VAROODHINI

DHARMAVARAPU

Date: 2025.02.07

16:53:53 +0530

Prl. Senior Civil Judge -Cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar.

S.C.No.446 of 2023 Page 15 of 18 on record so as to believe the involvement of accused in the aforementioned crime muchless the offences alleged against her in the case at hand. Prosecution failed to establish any previous history or convictions recorded against accuesd although similar offences are said to have been registered and mentioned in the charge sheet pending against her. Apparently, there are many lacunas in the case of prosecution as such, the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused as contained in criminal jurisprudence.

26.On sifting the entire evidence adduced on behalf of prosecution, the allegations that accused 1 is the organizer who runs the brothel house by arranging the customers and living on the earnings of victim is not proved with cogent evidence. There is no legal, definite and substantive piece of evidence so as to invite accused into the folds of charge under sections 370 (A) (2) of IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5, and 7 of

Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. Hence the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Thus, this point is answered in the negative.

RESULT:

27.In the result, accused 1 is found not guilty for the offences Under

Sections 370 (A) (2) of IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5, and 7 of Immoral Traffic

Digitally signed by

VAROODHINI

DHARMAVARAPU

Date: 2025.02.07

16:54:03 +0530 Prl. Senior Civil Judge -Cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar.

S.C.No.446 of 2023 Page 16 of 18 (Prevention) Act, 1956 and accordingly she is acquitted for the said offences Under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall operate for a further period of six months from today. MO1

Samsung gold color mobile phone, MO2 keypad Lava mobile phone, MO3

Samsung blue color mobile phone and MO5 amount of Rs.4,770/- deposited vide FDR No.183077 dated 24.07.2024 shall be confiscated to the State and MO4 five unused condoms shall be destroyed post expiry of appeal time. MO6 Honda Activa two wheeler vehicle bearing No.AP 11

AN 5972 shall be returned to its owner duly following the procedure contemplated under Cr.P.C. post expiry of appeal time.

(Dictated by me to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 07 th day of February, 2025).

Principal Senior Civil Judge -cum-

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1LW1K.Badya Naik.Defacto complainant and Sub- Inspector of Police who conducted raid and recorded confession statement.

PW2LW5Olga Sree.Assisted the IO.

PW3LW4M.Suresh.Assisted the IO.

Prl. Senior Civil Judge -Cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar.

S.C.No.446 of 2023 Page 17 of 18

PW4LW9M.Mahender Reddy.Investigation Officer.

PW5LW7Syed Muzafar.Panch witness for confession cum seizure cum scene of offence panchanama.

FOR DEFENCE:

- Nil.

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P1: Report.

Ex.P2: Confession cum seizure panchanama.

Ex.P3: Confession cum seizure cum scene of offence panchanama.

Ex.P4: Search memo.

Ex.P5: First information report.

Ex.P6: Proceedings of Executive Magistrate and Tahasildar Balapur Mandal dated 01.11.2021.

Ex.P7: Attested copy of FIR No.563/2017 dated 22.10.2017.

Ex.P8 : Signature of PW5 on confession cum seizure panchanama of to P11accused No.1.

FOR DEFENCE:

-Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

FOR PROSECUTION:

MO1 : Samsung gold color.

MO2 : Keypad Lava mobile phone.

Prl. Senior Civil Judge -Cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar.

S.C.No.446 of 2023 Page 18 of 18

MO3 : Samsung blue color mobile phone.

MO4 : Five unused condoms.

MO5 : Net cash of Rs.4,770/- deposited vide FDR No.183077 dated 24.07.2024.

MO6 : Honda Activa two wheeler vehicle bearing No.AP 11 AN 5972

FOR DEFENCE:

- Nil.

Principal Senior Civil Judge -cum-

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

Prl. Senior Civil Judge -Cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar.

S.C.No.658 of 2022 Page 1 of 14

TSRA010011712022

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM- CHIEF JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR.

Present: Smt. D.Varoodhini,

Principal Senior Civil Judge -Cum-

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

FRIDAY, THIS THE 07th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025.

SESSIONS CASE No. 658 of 2022.

(PRC NO.103/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT LB.NAGAR).

1. Name and description of the : The State of Telangana through SHO complainantP.S. Chaitanyapuri. 2Name and description of the Neerati Raju S/o. Late. Neerati Raja accused.Lingam, Age: 53 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.2-126,SaiNagar, Chaitanyapuri. 3Crime No.: 141 of 2022.

4Offence with which charged : Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. 5Plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty 6Finding of the Judge: Found not guilty 7Sentence or order: In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 306 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted for the said offence under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the

Digitally signed by

VAROODHINI

DHARMAVARAPU

Date: 2025.02.07

16:54:45 +0530 Prl. Senior Civil Judge -Cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, R. R. District at L.B.Nagar.

S.C.No.658 of 2022 Page 2 of 14 accused shall operate for further period of six months from today. MO1 black color mobile phone shall be returned to its owner by following due process of law and MO2 one nylon rope shall be destroyed post expiry of appeal period.

8Prosecution conducted by: Sri. K.Krishna Prasanna.

9Accused defended by: Sri. Konda Srinivas.

This case having come before me on 24.01.2025 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri. K.Krishna Prasanna, Learned

Additional Public Prosecutor, Sri. Konda Srinivas, Counsel for accused and

upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till date, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This case arises out of charge sheet laid by Sri. P.Ranga Reddy (PW11) the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Chaitanyapuri Police Station against accused herein in Crime No.141/2022 for the offence punishable

Under sections 306 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 [for short ”IPC”].

CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:

2.In Brevity, the case of the prosecution is that on 05.03.2022 at 1600 hours Smt. Varigela Prabhavathi W/o. Rajender Reddy (PW1) lodged report stating that at about 14 years ago, she got married with Sri.Varigela

Rajender Reddy and are blessed with two children namely 1) Master Sai

Teja and 2) Master Sanvik. Her husband Rajender Reddy (hereinafter

Digitally signed by

VAROODHINI

DHARMAVARAPU

Date: 2025.02.07

16:54:56 +0530

Prl. Senior Civil Judge -Cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, R. R. District at L.B.Nagar.

S.C.No.658 of 2022 Page 3 of 14 referred to as “deceased”) was running a mobile shop in the name and style of Sai Mobile Shop near Durga Wines, Chaitanyapuri. Accused herein is the owner of Durga Wines, Chaitanyapuri. In the month of December, 2021 accused approached deceased stating that he got wines shop contract and also asked to vacate the shop, offering an amount of

Rs.10,00,000/- as Goodwill. Believing the words of accused, deceased vacated his shop and when he asked goodwill amount, accused refused and harassed him by not giving the said amount, due to which deceased got dejected and out of distress, he committed suicide by hanging himself to the ceiling using MO2 nylon rope by recording his selfie video. Hence, suspecting the accused, PW1 lodged report seeking necessary action against accused.

3.On the strength of the report, Sri. B.Ravi Kumar, Inspector of Police registered a case vide Crime No.141 of 2022 for the offence under Section 306 of IPC and entrusted the investigation to PW11. During the course of his investigation, PW11 examined and recorded the statement of PW1.

Thereafter, PW11 visited the scene of offence and secured mediators

P.Vamshi Krishna (PW5) and D.Somnath (PW6). He conducted scene of offence panchanama and drafted sketch map of scene and seized MO1 black colour phone without name and MO2 nylon rope in the presence of mediators. PW11 held inquest over the corpse of deceased in the

Digitally signed by

VAROODHINI

DHARMAVARAPU

Date: 2025.02.07

16:55:06 +0530 Prl. Senior Civil Judge -Cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, R. R. District at L.B.Nagar.

S.C.No.658 of 2022 Page 4 of 14 presence of Shiva Pavan Kumar (PW10) and Md. Server (PW9). Dr. G.Venu

Gopal, Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Osmania

General Hospital conducted postmortem examination and opined that the deceased died due to “Hanging”. Thereafter, PW11 examined and recorded the statements of V.Malla Reddy (PW2), Varigela Manemma (PW3) and Varigela Ravinder Reddy (PW4). On 06.03.2022 at 1345 hours, accused was apprehended and on interrogation he confessed his guilt in the presence of mediators Thouti Reddy Kiran Kumar (PW8) and Are

Karunakarreddy and after complying all the formalities of arrest as contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “Cr.P.C.) and post completion of investigation, PW11 filed charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable Under section 306 IPC.

COGNIZANCE AND COMMITTAL:

4.The learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at

LB.Nagar took cognizance of the offence Under section 306 IPC against the accused vide PRC No.103/2022. The record reflects, on appearance of accused, case papers were furnished to him as contemplated under

Section 207 Cr.P.C. and the case record was committed to the Court of

Sessions Division i.e. Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy

District as the offence is exclusively triable by Hon’ble Sessions Court.

Thereafter, case was made over to this court as S.C.No.658/2022 by

Digitally signed by

VAROODHINI

DHARMAVARAPU

Date: 2025.02.07

16:55:16 +0530 Prl. Senior Civil Judge -Cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, R. R. District at L.B.Nagar.

S.C.No.658 of 2022 Page 5 of 14

Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District for disposal

according to law.

FRAMING OF CHARGES:

5.On appearance of the accused, after perusal of the report, statements of the witnesses and material papers on record, upon hearing, the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel, this court framed charge under Section 228 of Cr.P.C. for the offence Under section 306 of IPC, read over the contents of charge and explained to accused in vernacular. Having understood the same, accused denied the charge and opted for trial.

6.Prosecution examined PW1 to PW11 and got marked Exs.P1 to P15 and MO2. Exs.P1 to P4 are the relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PW1 to PW4. Ex.P5 is the signature of PW5 on crime details form. Ex.P6 is the crime details form. Ex.P7 is the postmortem examination report.

Ex.P8 is the signature of PW8 on confession panchanama. Ex.P9 is the signature of PW9 on inquest panchanama. Ex.P10 is the signature of PW10 on inquest panchanama. Ex.P11 is the endorsement of Sri.B.Ravi Kumar on report. Ex.P12 is the report. Ex.P13 is the First Information Report.

Ex.P14 is the inquest panchanama. Ex.P15 is the confession panchanama.

MO1 is black color mobile phone and MO2 is one nylon rope.

Digitally signed by

VAROODHINI

DHARMAVARAPU

Date: 2025.02.07

16:55:23 +0530 Prl. Senior Civil Judge -Cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, R. R. District at L.B.Nagar.

S.C.No.658 of 2022 Page 6 of 14

EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED U/SEC. 313(1)(B) CR.P.C.:

7.On conclusion of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. putting the entire incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Accused denied entire evidence on record in toto and had not chose to adduce any evidence on his behalf. The case of the accused is of total denial.

8.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel

for accused.

9.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that though PW1 to

PW4, PW8 to PW10 and PW5 and PW6 the mediators for scene of offence panchanama failed to support the prosecution case, the evidence of PW11 is consistent enough to prove the guilt of the accused and conviction can be based solely on the evidence of PW11. Hence, prayed to convict the accused.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for accused vehemently contended that the crucial witnesses i.e. PW1 to PW4 blood relatives of deceased and

PW5, PW6, PW8 to PW10 the mediators for scene of offence panchanama, inquest panchanama and confession panchanama, failed to support the charge. Even if the prosecution case is believed to be true, no case of

Digitally signed by

VAROODHINI

DHARMAVARAPU

Date: 2025.02.07

16:55:39 +0530

Prl. Senior Civil Judge -Cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, R. R. District at L.B.Nagar.

S.C.No.658 of 2022 Page 7 of 14 abetment by accused to commit suicide by the deceased could be made out. It is further argued that there is no evidence against accused of any act of instigation, conspiracy or aiding on the part of accused which compelled deceased to commit suicide. Hence, prayed to acquit the accused.

11.Now the point that emerges for determination is

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the

offence punishable Under section 306 of IPC beyond all

reasonable doubt?

12.POINT: The sum and substance of the case of the prosecution is that deceased was running mobile shop and accused who got the Wines shop contract asked the deceased to vacate his mobile shop in lieu of which he offered him an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- as goodwill, upon which deceased vacated his mobile shop, however accused failed to give the goodwill amount and harassed him. On 05.03.2022 deceased having vexed with his life and committed suicide by hanging himself in his house.

Hence, accused is charged for the offence under Section 306 IPC.

13. In order to establish the guilt of accused, prosecution examined as many as eleven witnesses in all and got exhibited fifteen documents and two material objects. Out of all the witnesses examined, PW1 is the defacto complainant, PW2 and PW3 are the parents of the deceased, PW4

Digitally signed by

VAROODHINI

DHARMAVARAPU

Date: 2025.02.07

16:56:15 +0530 Prl. Senior Civil Judge -Cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, R. R. District at L.B.Nagar.

S.C.No.658 of 2022 Page 8 of 14 is the younger brother of the deceased, PW5 and PW6 are mediators for scene of offence panchanama and sketch map of scene, PW7 is the

Doctor who held autopsy, PW8 is one of the mediator for confession panchanama, PW9 and PW10 are the mediators for inquest panchanama,

PW11 is the second investigation officer.

EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE:

14.Unearthing the evidence of prosecution, PW1 who is the wife of deceased testified that her husband used to run mobile shop in the name and style of Sri Sai Mobile shop near Durga Wine Shop. Subsequently, he sustained loss in his business due to which, he got dejected and committed suicide by hanging himself. She further testified that she never lodged any report with the police and disowned her signature on the report. Hence, the evidence of PW1 whose evidence is crucial is of no aid to the case of prosecution as it failed to establish the contents of Ex.P12 report and the factum of lodging it by her.

15.PW2 to PW4 the parents and younger brother of deceased testified along similar lines of PW1.

16.One of the mediator for scene of offence panchanama and sketch map of scene PW5, feigned ignorance regarding the conduct of scene of

Digitally signed by

VAROODHINI

DHARMAVARAPU

Date: 2025.02.07

16:56:23 +0530 Prl. Senior Civil Judge -Cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, R. R. District at L.B.Nagar.

S.C.No.658 of 2022 Page 9 of 14 offence panchanama by the police in his presence. He further deposed that about 02 years ago when he went to the police station on his personal work, police obtained his signatures on some papers. During the course of cross examination by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor nothing crucial was elicited against accused.

17.Another mediator for scene of offence panchanama and sketch map of scene is examined as PW6 who supported the version of prosecution regarding the conduct of panchanama in his presence and seizure of one

MO1 black colour mobile phone and MO2 nylon rope. Defence failed to elicit anything to disprove the version of PW6.

18.PW8 one of the mediator for confession panchanama, feigned ignorance regarding the conduct of panchanama by the police in his presence. He further deposed that about 2 ½ years ago when he went to police station on his personal work, there police obtained his signatures on some papers. During the course of cross examination by the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor nothing crucial was elicited to disprove his

version. The evidence of PW8 is not of much help to the prosecution case as it disproves the very detention of accused and his confession, which ultimately touches the root of the case.

Digitally signed by

VAROODHINI

DHARMAVARAPU

Date: 2025.02.07

16:56:32 +0530

Prl. Senior Civil Judge -Cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, R. R. District at L.B.Nagar.

S.C.No.658 of 2022 Page 10 of 14

19.The mediators for inquest panchanama are examined as PW9 and

PW10, however except stating that police Chaitanyapuri conducted inquest panchanama of the deceased at Osmania General Hospital,

Hyderabad in the year 2022, no other material facts were elicited by the prosecution. Hence at the most prosecution could prove the death of the deceased through their testimonies.

20.The second investigation officer PW11 testified about registering the crime for the offence under Section 306 of IPC against accused basing on the contents of Ex.P12 report, issuing Ex.P13 FIR, conducting scene of offence panchanama and subsequent seizure of MO1 and MO2 and later part of investigation.

21.The specific case of the prosecution is that prior to commission of suicide by the deceased, he took a selfie video wherein he disclosed that accused was responsible for his death and in the next morning he committed suicide. Be that as it may, prosecution failed to putforth the said compact disc before this court which is fact is fatal to its case.

22.On sifting the entire evidence adduced on behalf of prosecution, the allegations that deceased committed suicide by hanging himself due to unbearable harassment of accused is not proved with the cogent

Digitally signed by

VAROODHINI

DHARMAVARAPU

Date: 2025.02.07

16:56:39 +0530 Prl. Senior Civil Judge -Cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, R. R. District at L.B.Nagar.

S.C.No.658 of 2022 Page 11 of 14 evidence. All the material witnesses including the blood relatives of deceased failed to support the charge framed against accused.

23.Leaving these witnesses apart, there remains the evidence of

PW11 who nevertheless deposed the chronological order of events occurred during the course of investigation, his evidence is procedural in nature and being the official witness, his evidence cannot be independently believed when there is no corroborative evidence forthcoming from the prosecution witnesses. However in the charge sheet

PW11 speaks that the accused had confessed his guilt. Except this particular incriminating statement against accused, there is absolutely no other evidence against the accused to bring home the guilt for the offence under Section and 306 of IPC. Even the said confession is not admissible as it hits Sections 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

24.Pertinent here is to note that, nevertheless, the basis for PW11 to conclude his investigation with a finding that, the accused abetted the commission of suicide, is the statement made by PW1 to PW4 before the investigation officer and also as per Ex.P12 report, however the very same witnesses before this court failed to support the case of the prosecution.

Apparently, there are many lacunas in the case of prosecution. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances, this Court holds that, the

Digitally signed by

VAROODHINI

DHARMAVARAPU

Date: 2025.02.07

16:56:47 +0530 Prl. Senior Civil Judge -Cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, R. R. District at L.B.Nagar.

S.C.No.658 of 2022 Page 12 of 14 prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, as such the accused is entitled for acquittal.

Accordingly, the point is answered.

25.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under

Section 306 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted for the said offence under

Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall operate for further period of six months from today. MO1 black color mobile phone shall be returned to its owner by following due process of law and MO2 one nylon rope shall be destroyed post expiry of appeal period.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 07 th day of February,

2025).

Principal Senior Civil Judge -Cum-

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1LW1V.Prabhavathi.Defacto complainant/wife of deceased.

PW2LW2V.Malla Reddy.Witness and father of deceased.

PW3LW3V.Manemma.Witness and mother of deceased.

Prl. Senior Civil Judge -Cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, R. R. District at L.B.Nagar.

S.C.No.658 of 2022 Page 13 of 14

PW4LW4V.Ravinder Reddy.Witness and younger brother of deceased.

PW5LW5P.Vamshi Krishna.Panch witness for crime details form.

PW6LW6Duggu Somnath.Panch witness for crime details form.

PW7LW11Dr.G.Venu Gopal Rao.Conducted autopsy.

PW8LW7Thouti Reddy Kiran Panch for confession panchanama. Kumar.

PW9LW10Md. Server.Panch for inquest panchanama.

PW10 LW9Shiva Pavan Kumar.Panch for inquest panchanama.

PW11 LW14P.Ranga Reddy.Investigation Officer.

FOR DEFENCE:

-Nil.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1.

Ex.P2: Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2.

Ex.P3: Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3.

Ex.P4: Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW4.

Ex.P5: Signatures of PW5 on Crime details form.

Ex.P6: Crime Details Form.

Ex.P7: Postmortem Examination Report.

Ex.P8: Signatures of PW8 on confession panchanama.

Ex.P9: Signatures of PW9 on inquest panchanama.

Ex.P10 : Signatures of PW10 on inquest panchanama.

Ex.P11 : Endorsement of Sri B.Ravi Kumar on report.

Ex.P12 : Report.

Ex.P13 : First Information Report.

Prl. Senior Civil Judge -Cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, R. R. District at L.B.Nagar.

S.C.No.658 of 2022 Page 14 of 14

Ex.P14 : Inquest panchanama.

Ex.P15 : Confession panchanama.

FOR DEFENCE:

-Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

FOR PROSECUTION:

MO1 : Black colour mobile phone.

MO2 : One nylon rope.

FOR DEFENCE:

-Nil.

Principal Senior Civil Judge -Cum-

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

Prl. Senior Civil Judge -Cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, R. R. District at L.B.Nagar.

S.O.P.No.37 of 2023Page 1 of 8

TSRA010014672023

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM- CHIEF JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR.

Present: Smt. D.Varoodhini,

Principal Senior Civil Judge -Cum-

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

THURSDAY, THIS THE 13th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025.

S.O.P. No.37 of 2023.

Between:

1. Gudipati Kotewswara Rao, S/o. G.Rangaiah, Age: 76 years, Occ: Retd. Employee.

2. Gudipati Venkata Ramana, S/o. Gudipati Kotewswara Rao, Age: 46 years, Occ: Postal Employee, Both are R/o. Plot No.83, H.No.16-11, Sri Sai Raghavendra Homes, Road No.3, Badangpet, Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

3. Valluri Adlakshmi, W/o. Srinivasa Rao, D/o. Gudipati Kotewswara Rao, Age: 41 years, Occ: Home Maker, R/o.H.No.5-6-22, Maha Kavi Sri Sri Road, Near Chaitanya school, Nagaruna Nagar, Sattenapalle, Palnadu, Andhra Pradesh.

... Petitioners.

Digitally signed by

VAROODHINI

DHARMAVARAPU

Date: 2025.02.13

16:16:41 +0530 Prl. Senior Civil Judge -Cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar.

S.O.P.No.37 of 2023Page 2 of 8

AND

1. The Post Life Insurance, Represented by its Manager, Secunderabad – 500 003.

2. All concerned.

... Respondents.

This petition having come before me for final hearing on 06.02.2025 in the presence of M/s. G.Rama Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioners, first respondent remained exparte and publication issued to all concerned, but no objections received and upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till date, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

Petitioners filed petition Under section 372 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 seeking issuance of succession certificate declaring the petitioners as the successors of Late Gudipati Satyanarayana.

2. The sum and substance of the averments of the petition, inter alia, is that first petitioner is the father, second petitioner is the brother and third petitioner is the sister of Late Gudipati Satyanarayana who died intestate on 24.07.2021. The wife of first petitioner Gudipati Subbamma died on 27.11.2021. Except the petitioners, there are no other legal heirs and successors of the deceased. During his life time, he subscribed Postal

Life Insurance Policy vide 1). Policy No.0000000129035 for a sum assured of Rs.1,00,000/- dated 01.10.2015, 2). Policy No.0000000129026 for a sum assured of Rs.1,00,000/- dated 01.10.2015, 3). Policy Digitally signed by

VAROODHINI

DHARMAVARAPU

Date: 2025.02.13

16:16:50 +0530 Prl. Senior Civil Judge -Cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar.

S.O.P.No.37 of 2023Page 3 of 8

No.0000000129150 for a sum assured of Rs.1,00,000/- dated 01.10.2015, 4). Policy No.0000000129142 for a sum assured of Rs.1,00,000/- dated 01.10.2015, 5). Policy No.0000000129039 for a sum assured of

Rs.1,00,000/- dated 01.10.2015 and 6). Policy No.000000230324 for a sum assured of Rs.5,00,000/- dated 01.10.2015 wherein the first petitioner and Late Gudipati Subbamma are mentioned as nominees.

When the petitioners approached the first respondent on 10.10.2023 for settlement of claims in respect of the aforementioned policies, respondent insisted for succession certificate. There are no other legal heirs to the deceased except the petitioners as Late Gudipati

Satyanarayana is unmarried. Hence, petitioners came up with the petition seeking issuance of succession certificate.

3.Having received the notice, first respondent failed to enter appearance and remained exparte all through the proceedings.

4.Publication was issued in “Nava Telangana” local daily to all concerned, but this court received no objections claiming any adverse interest against the claim of petitioners.

5.During the course of enquiry, first petitioner examined himself as

PW1 and filed his evidence affidavit in lieu of examination in chief. Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 are marked through him.

Digitally signed by

VAROODHINI

DHARMAVARAPU

Date: 2025.02.13

16:17:01 +0530

Prl. Senior Civil Judge -Cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar.

S.O.P.No.37 of 2023Page 4 of 8

6.On the other hand, respondents neither choose to contest the case nor adduced any evidence on their behalf.

7.Heard learned counsel for petitioners and perused the material placed on record.

8.Now the points that emerge for consideration are:

1. Whether the petitioners established the death of Late Gudipati Satyanarayana?

2. Whether the petitioners established that they are the only legal heirs of Late Gudipati Satyanarayana?

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for succession certificate, as prayed for?

Findings on points 1 to 3:

9.In order to substantially prove their case, first petitioner examined himself as PW1 and filed his evidence affidavit in lieu of examination in chief. The contents of his evidence affidavit is the replica of the averments of the petition.

10.The evidence of first petitioner as PW1 manifests that he is the father, second petitioner is the brother and third petitioner is the sister of

Late Gudipati Satyanarayana who died intestate on 24.07.2021. The wife of first petitioner and the mother of deceased Gudipati Subbamma died on 27.11.2021. Deceased was unmarried. Except the petitioners, there are no other legal heirs and successors of the deceased. PW1 further

Digitally signed by

VAROODHINI

DHARMAVARAPU

Date: 2025.02.13

16:26:06 +0530 Prl. Senior Civil Judge -Cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar.

S.O.P.No.37 of 2023Page 5 of 8 deposed that Late Gudipati Satyanarayana subscribed Postal Life

Insurance Policy vide 1). Policy No.0000000129035 for a sum assured of

Rs.1,00,000/- dated 01.10.2015, 2). Policy No.0000000129026 for a sum assured of Rs.1,00,000/- dated 01.10.2015, 3). Policy No.0000000129150 for a sum assured of Rs.1,00,000/- dated 01.10.2015, 4). Policy

No.0000000129142 for a sum assured of Rs.1,00,000/- dated 01.10.2015, 5). Policy No.0000000129039 for a sum assured of Rs.1,00,000/- dated 01.10.2015 and 6). Policy No.000000230324 for a sum assured of

Rs.5,00,000/- dated 01.10.2015 wherein the first petitioner and Late

Gudipati Subbamma are mentioned as nominees. When the petitioners approached the first respondent on 10.10.2023 for settlement of claims in respect of the aforementioned policies, respondent insisted for succession certificate. He further deposed that there are no other legal heirs to the deceased except the petitioners.

11.Now the initial burden, lies on the petitioners to prove that they are the only legal heirs of Late Gudipati Satyanarayana. In order to establish their claim, petitioners relied upon the oral testimony of PW1 and documentary evidence under Exs.P1 to P10. Ex.P1 is the original death certificate of Late Gudipati Satyanarayana who died on 24.07.2021 which proves his death. Ex.P2 is the death certificate of Late Gudipati

Subbamma the wife of first petitioner and mother of Late Gudipati

Digitally signed by

VAROODHINI

DHARMAVARAPU

Date: 2025.02.13

16:26:39 +0530

Prl. Senior Civil Judge -Cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar.

S.O.P.No.37 of 2023Page 6 of 8

Satyanarayana died on 27.11.2021 which proves her death. Ex.P3 is the original acceptance letter policy bearing No.0000000129035 for a sum assured of Rs.1,00,000/- dated 07.10.2015. Ex.P4 is the original acceptance letter policy bearing No.0000000129026 for a sum assured of

Rs.1,00,000/- dated 07.10.2015. Ex.P5 is the original acceptance letter of

Policy bearing No.0000000129142 for a sum assured of Rs.1,00,000/-

dated 07.10.2015. Ex.P6 is the original acceptance letter Policy

No.000000230324 for a sum assured of Rs.5,00,000/- dated 07.10.2015.

Exs.P7 to P9 are the original Aadhar cards of petitioners which disclose their identities. Ex.P10 is the original househod card of petitioner which manifest that the relationship of petitioners with Late Gudipati

Satyanarayana.

12. The specific claim of the petitioners is that during his life time Late

Gudipati Satyanarayana subscribed the policies mentioned supra with the first respondent where his policy benefits were credited and as the petitioners are the only legal heirs of the deceased, hence they are entitled to be declared as his successors. A perusal of the record manifests that, first respondent although refused to release the amount, did not deny that the amounts stand in the name Late Gudipati

Satyanarayana. However, no occular or documentary evidence was produced on behalf of first respondent.

Digitally signed by

VAROODHINI

DHARMAVARAPU

Date: 2025.02.13

16:26:57 +0530

Prl. Senior Civil Judge -Cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar.

S.O.P.No.37 of 2023Page 7 of 8

13. A close perusal of occular evidence of PW1 and documentary evidence under Exs.P1 to P10 does not disclose anything patent to disprove or discard the claim of the petitioners. From the evidence on record, occular and documentary, it is manifest that deceased was unmarried and died on 24.07.2021, leaving behind the petitioners as his legal heirs and except the petitioners there are no other legal heirs of deceased as no one claimed any adverse interest against the claim of petitioners. As stated supra, first respondent did not deny the relationship of the petitioners with the deceased. The claim of the petitioners to be declared as legal heirs of deceased Late Gudipati Satyanarayana is proved through consistent and convincing oral and documentary evidence. Thus, the points are answered in the affirmative.

14.In the result, petition is allowed, declaring the petitioners as the successors of Late Gudipati Satyanarayana. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 13 th day of February, 2025).

Principal Senior Civil Judge -Cum-

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Prl. Senior Civil Judge -Cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar.

S.O.P.No.37 of 2023Page 8 of 8

FOR PETITIONERS:

PW1 : G.Koteshwara Rao.

FOR RESPONDENTS:

-Nil.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER:

Ex.P1: Original death certificate of Late Gudipati Satyanarayana dated 05.11.2021.

Ex.P2: Original death certificate of Late Gudipati Satyanarayana 21.02.2022.

Ex.P3: Original acceptance letter policy bearing No.0000000129035 for a sum assured of Rs.1,00,000/- dated 07.10.2015.

Ex.P4: Original acceptance letter policy bearing No.0000000129026 for a sum assured of Rs.1,00,000/- dated 07.10.2015.

Ex.P5: Policy bearing No.0000000129142 for a sum assured of Rs.1,00,000/- dated 07.10.2015.

Ex.P6: Original acceptance letter Policy No.000000230324 for a sum assured of Rs.5,00,000/- dated 07.10.2015.

Ex.P7: Original Aadhar card of first petitioner.

Ex.P8: Original Aadhar card of second petitioner.

Ex.P9: Original Aadhar card of third petitioner.

Ex.P10 : Original household card.

FOR RESPONDENTS:

-Nil.

Principal Senior Civil Judge -cum-

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

Prl. Senior Civil Judge -Cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar.

O.S.No.276 of 2018Page 1 of 8

TSRA010002682018

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM- CHIEF JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR.

Present: Smt. D.Varoodhini,

Principal Senior Civil Judge -Cum-

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

TUESDAY, THIS THE 11th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025.

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 276 of 2018.

BETWEEN:

The Karnataka Bank Ltd., a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, Carrying the Banking Business Having its Registered and Head office at Mahaveera Circle, P.B.No.599, Kankanady Mangaluru – 575002 and several branches throught India and one amongst them at Ground Floor, Beside Pillar No.210, M Q Splendour, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad – 500 048 Represented by its Manager Mr. SM Arif Hussain, S/o. SK Mahaboob Basha.

... Plaintiff.

AND

1. M/s. Drugs The Fashion Addiction, 8-16/A, Opp: Hyderabad Public School, Nehru Nagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad – 500 013. Represented by its Proprietor, Ative Bhanu Chander.

Digitally signed by

VAROODHINI

DHARMAVARAPU

Date: 2025.02.11

15:20:47 +0530 Prl. Senior Civil Judge -cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar.

O.S.No.276 of 2018Page 2 of 8

2. Mr. Ative Bhanu Chander, S/o. Sri Shyam Rao, Aged: 27 years, Resident of H.No.2-2-42/1, near Laxmi Gardens, Hanuman Sai Nagar, Uppal, Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy District – 500 013.

... Defendants.

This suit having come before me for final hearing on 23.01.2025 in the presence of Sri. P.Veerabhadra Rao, learned Counsel for plaintiff and defendants remained exparte, and upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till date, this Court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

Plaintiff Bank filed the suit against defendants seeking recovery of

Rs.8,49,553/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Forty Nine Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty Three only).

PLEADINGS OF THE PLAINTIFF:

2(a).Succinctly, the averments of the plaint interalia, are as follows:

Plaintiff Bank is a body corporate, constituted under the provisions of Companies Act, 1913 having its registered Office at Mahaveera Circle,

Kankanady, Mangaluru, Karnataka and branch offices across India including one at Rajendranagar, represented by its authorized signatory under General Power of Attorney to transact the banking business. The defendants are into Garments Business. They approached plaintiff bank on 05.06.2015 for a loan of Rs.8,00,000/- for the purpose of working

Digitally signed by

VAROODHINI

DHARMAVARAPU

Date: 2025.02.11

15:20:56 +0530

Prl. Senior Civil Judge -cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar.

O.S.No.276 of 2018Page 3 of 8

capital for the business. Plaintiff bank sanctioned a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- and the same was informed to the defendant through credit sanction letter and terms and conditions dated 23.06.2015 vide Sanction reference No.CMRS/R350/5258/2015 and the same shall be repaid by the defendant in 34 equitable monthly installments of Rs.27,777/- per month @ interest under the suit loan account No.66470001400000401. First defendant executed term loan agreement dated 24.06.2015 and executed hypothecation agreement dated 24.06.2015.

2(b). Plaintiff further submits that defendant failed to honour the terms of loan agreement, as a result a sum of Rs.8,49,553/- remained outstanding as on 24.01.2018 after adjusting all payments, defendant is liable to pay future interest @ 14.25% per annum with monthly rest (including penal interest @ 3% per annum) from the date of suit and the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the loan amount with future interest @ 11.40% per annum compounded monthly. Defendants failed to repay the loan amount despite several requests and repeated demands. Hence, the suit.

3.As the defendants was reportedly averting summons, publication was issued in "Nava Telangana" local daily but defendants failed to

Digitally signed by

VAROODHINI

DHARMAVARAPU

Date: 2025.02.11

15:21:05 +0530

Prl. Senior Civil Judge -cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar.

O.S.No.276 of 2018Page 4 of 8

enter appearance and were set exparte and remained so all through the proceedings.

4.During the course of trial, Sri. D.Omar Saheb, the Manager of plaintiff bank is examined as PW1 and filed his evidence affidavit in lieu of examination in chief and got exhibited Ex.A1 to Ex.A11.

5.On the other hand, defendants neither chose to contest the case nor adduced any evidence on their behalf.

6.Heard, learned counsel for plaintiff and perused the material placed on record.

7.Now the point that emerges for consideration is

Whether the plaintiff Bank is entitled to the recovery of

suit claim amount, as prayed for?

8.Point: Sri. D. Omar Saheb, Bank Manager of plaintiff Bank filed his evidence affidavit in lieu of examination in chief. The contents of his evidence affidavit are the reiteration of pleadings.

9.In order to substantiate its claim, plaintiff Bank placed reliance upon documentary evidence under Exs.A1 to Ex.A11. Ex.A1 is the original application form for MSEs dated 01.06.2015 which shows that

Digitally signed by

VAROODHINI

DHARMAVARAPU

Date: 2025.02.11

15:21:13 +0530 Prl. Senior Civil Judge -cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar.

O.S.No.276 of 2018Page 5 of 8

defendants applied loan with the plaintiff bank for the purpose of working capital. Ex.A2 is the original credit sanction intimation dated 23.06.2015 which manifest that plaintiff bank sanctioned an amount of

Rs.8,00,000/- in favour of defendantsvide sanction reference

No.CMRS/R350/5258/2015.Ex.A3 is the original hypothecation agreement dated 24.06.2015 which reveal that defendants hypothecated his stocks in trade of ready made garments with the plaintiff Bank as security for due repayment of loan amount. Ex.A4 is the account opening form for proprietorship concern dated 24.06.2015.

Ex.A5 is the original declaration by first defendant dated 24.06.2015.

Ex.A6 is the original consent letter from the borrower/s dated 24.06.2015. Ex.A7 is the original General Power of Attorney for book debts dated 24.06.2015. Ex.A8 is the original delivery letter dated 24.06.2015. Ex.A9 is the original demand promissory note dated 24.06.2015. Ex.A10 is the Returned notice along with returned postal envelop dated 24.05.2016 disclosing that plaintiff Bank requesting defendants to regularize his account before 05.06.2016. Ex.A11 is the extract of statement of account of defendants from 24.06.2015 to 24.01.2018.

10.As per the unchallenged occular evidence of PW1 and documentary evidence under Exs.A1 to A11, it is manifestly clear that

Digitally signed by

VAROODHINI

DHARMAVARAPU

Date: 2025.02.11

15:21:21 +0530 Prl. Senior Civil Judge -cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar.

O.S.No.276 of 2018Page 6 of 8

defendant approached the plaintiff Bank on 05.06.2015 seeking loan for working capital for an amount of Rs.8,00,000/-. Plaintiff Bank duly sanctioned the same under sanction reference No.CMRS/R350/ 5258/2015 as per Ex.A2. Defendant executed composite hypothecation agreement dated 24.06.2015 under Ex.A3. Defendants hypothecated his stocks in trade of ready made garments with the plaintiff Bank as security for due repayment of loan amount. PW1 further deposed that plaintiff got issued legal notice under Ex.A10 on 24.05.2016 requesting the defendants to regularize his account on or before 05.06.2016.

Defendants failed to repay the loan amount despite several requests and repeated demands.

11.As stated supra, defendants remained exparte and did not choose to contest the case. Moreover, defendants did not make any efforts to put forth their case. A close perusal of unrebutted oral evidence of PW1 and documentary evidence under Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 does not disclose anything patent to disprove or discard the claim of plaintiff Bank. Hence, plaintiff Bank is entitled to recover the suit claim amount, as prayed for.

Thus, point is answered accordingly in the affirmative.

12. In the result, suit is decreed, with costs, directing the defendants jointly and severally to pay sum of Rs.8,49,553/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs

Forty Nine Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty Three only) together with Digitally signed by

VAROODHINI

DHARMAVARAPU

Date: 2025.02.11

15:21:28 +0530 Prl. Senior Civil Judge -cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar.

O.S.No.276 of 2018Page 7 of 8

interest @14.25% (including penal interest of @3% per annum) from the date of institution of the suit till the date of realization.

(Dictated by me to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 11 th day of February, 2025).

Principal Senior Civil Judge -cum-

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

PW1 : D.Omer Saheb.

FOR DEFENDANTS:

-Nil.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: Original loan application.dt. 01.06.2015.

Ex.A2: Original credit sanction letter.dt. 23.06.2015.

Ex.A3: Original hypothecation agreement.dt. 24.06.2015.

Ex.A4: Original account opening form.dt. 24.06.2015.

Ex.A5: Original declaration by first defendant.dt. 24.06.2015.

Ex.A6: Original consent letter from the borrowers.dt. 24.06.2015.

Ex.A7: Original General Power of Attorney for bookdt. 24.06.2015. debts.

Ex.A8: Original take delivery letter.dt.24.06.2015.

Ex.A9: Original demand promissory note.dt.24.06.2015.

Prl. Senior Civil Judge -cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar.

O.S.No.276 of 2018Page 8 of 8

Ex.A10 : Returned notice along with returned postaldt.24.05.2016. envelop.

Ex.A11 : True extract statement of account.dt.25.01.2018.

FOR DEFENDANTS:

- Nil.

Principal Senior Civil Judge -cum-

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

Prl. Senior Civil Judge -cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar.